Fluoride in toothpaste; must water be poisoned? dentist asks

Most people use toothpaste, which contains so much fluoride that tubes such as this one contain a remarkable warning on the back. (Photo David Tulis)

Fluoride is an industrial waste that is conveniently recycled into north Hamilton County water supplies as a benefit to the human tooth. Fluoridation has been commonplace in many parts of the country since the 1940s, when it was pushed upon the public by federal officials with useful industrial connections. Yet some water districts are refusing the continue fluoride chemical injections, most recently in 2013 in Maury County, Tenn.

When a city is considering adding or removing fluoride from the public drinking water the dental community usually gets in an uproar and sometimes viciously denigrates those citizens who are opposed to water fluoridation. After having studied both sides of the fluoridation controversy for over 35 years I would like to share with you some facts regarding fluoridation of which many people may not be aware. First is the issue of what will happen if fluoride is added to or removed from the public drinking water.

Will tooth decay rates soar when fluoride ends?

Communities that are ending fluoridation should consider themselves very fortunate to be eliminating this very toxic arsenic-laced industrial waste hydrofluorosilicic acid chemical from their water supply. However, I know there will be a slew of dentists and other pro-fluoride folks who will begin to rave on and on and on that tooth decay rates will now double or triple when fluoridation ends.

Rest assured that will never happen as these misinformed dentists aware that there has never been even one controlled study that scientifically documents that water fluoridation has ever reduced or prevented tooth decay. Since water fluoridation has never been shown to reduce or prevent tooth decay — how can removing it from the drinking water cause tooth decay rates to increase?

The American Dental Association’s “classical” water fluoridation/tooth decay studies used back in the 1940s and ’50s to justify their endorsement of water fluoridation were nothing more than orchestrated and carefully scripted unscientific publications that were intentionally sculptured to create the illusion that fluoride had something to do with reducing tooth decay rates.

Trendley Dean, DDS, was the chief dental officer at the U.S Public Health Service (USPHS) is commonly referred to by the ADA as the “Father of water fluoridation.” Dr. Dean was responsible for designing and creating those “classical” fluoridated water/tooth decay studies done by the UPSHS in the 1940s and early 1950s. Dr. Dean, when cross-examined before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California in Oroville, Oct. 20-21, 1955, admitted, under oath, that those “studies” were not valid studies.

None of those studies, nor any since then, followed the same children from year to year, the water sources were not consistent, and there was absolutely no consideration for nutrition, oral hygiene care or dental care. A valid scientific controlled study cannot have these numerous variables, especially variables that are not taken into consideration. The ADA just forgot to teach dentists that Dr. Dean invalidated his own “classical” studies.

In addition, the World Health Organization (WHO) has now determined that over the years tooth decay rates have gone down equally in fluoridated and non-fluoridated communities. So where is the “benefit?” It’s not there — and never has been. You can find that WHO documentation at www.FluorideAlert.org.

The outcome of ceasing community water fluoridation (CWF) will only have positive results for the community. Folks will no longer have to experience any of those adverse health effects that are either caused or aggravated by ingesting this arsenic/lead laced toxic industrial waste hydrofluorosilicic acid chemical soup that we call Fluoride.

Besides being known to be a general protoplasmic poison and a strong cellular enzyme poison, fluorine is also known to be comparable to lead and arsenic as far as its ability to cause some symptoms of toxicity in minute doses. It has already been documented by the ADA and the USPHS that adverse health effects influenced by fluoridation are numerous. Dental fluorosis is caused only by Fluoride ingestion and is the first visible symptom of chronic fluoride poisoning.

Bone and endocrine disorders are directly correlated with Fluoride ingestion. One particular bone cancer in boys is directly attributed only to Fluoride ingestion.

I suggest that this information be shared with any pro fluoride individual who attempts to convince you that tooth decay rates will rise if this toxic fluoride chemical is removed from your drinking water supply.

Ending water fluoridation will not cause any increase in tooth decay rates as water fluoridation has never reduced or prevented tooth decay in the first place. And remember:

Fables from dental school

I graduated from dental school in 1972. To be licensed in Oklahoma and other states a dentist has to graduate from a dental school that is accredited by the American Dental Association. For a dental school to be accredited by the ADA that school has to meet the very strict curriculum requirements of the ADA. All accredited dental schools are just carbon copies of each other so it doesn’t matter which ADA accredited dental school one attends as they are all the same except maybe for the color of the wallpaper.

In my dental school, one day during one of our preventative dentistry courses, only a very few minutes was devoted to telling us students that “fluoridated drinking water reduced and prevented tooth decay and it was safe and caused no bodily harm.” If a student said something about hearing that fluoride was a toxic chemical and should not be added to the drinking water we were instructed very explicitly that it is the dentists who are the “experts” and that the public does not know anything about fluoride and that fluoride was safe and that anyone who disagreed was unscientific, misinformed, a fear monger and should be seriously denigrated — and if we ever expected to graduate from dental school we had darn well better defend water fluoridation and never question it.

That was it, no book, no PowerPoint, no tests, no nothing…just this brief statement one day.

That was the total amount of “facts” we students were taught about water fluoridation science.

The ADA does not want dentists to know truthful, accurate and undistorted water fluoridation science so they intentionally keep it out of the dental school curriculum and instead just supply dentists with rehearsed scripted messages to spout. The public and most dentists unfortunately think this very brief indoctrination (brainwashing) received in dental school somehow makes dentist fluoridation “experts.”

To my knowledge, the dental schools water fluoridation educational curriculum has not changed since 1972. Since the ADA controls the dental school curriculum, as well as dentistry in general, a potential dental student has to first pass the ADA’s Dental Aptitude Test to be accepted to a dental school. Another ADA test has to be passed to advance to the third year and again at the end of the fourth year to graduate. Then a dentist has to graduate from an ADA accredited school to be licensed. Then there is the back door the ADA has into all the state dental boards.

Dentists take what they learn in dental school as gospel truth. We are taught many very specific procedures and techniques for treating tooth decay and gum diseases. We don’t deviate.

We do as we are taught. If we expect to graduate from dental school we had darn well do as we are told and taught. If we don’t do as taught, we fail. This water fluoridation scenario is the same. Dentists don’t question their dental school fluoridation teachings, they take it as GOSPEL TRUTH which means that dentists will attack and denigrate anyone who is opposed to fluoridation. These ADA-controlled dental schools are very good at turning out very skilled and professional dentists — but these schools are total failures at turning out anything that even remotely resembles a “fluoridation expert.”

Because of the ADA’s control over dental schools, there is no such thing as a scientifically accurate Water Fluoridation 101 course taught in any dental school in this country, and there never has been. Should any dentists approach you with that pretense that they are the “experts,” I suggest you ask them to document their qualifications and have them show you on their dental school course transcript where their fluoride coursework is documented. Also ask them to document if they have taken any continuing education courses on water fluoridation since their graduation from dental school.

They won’t be able to provide any documentation as no courses have ever existed. The public has been misled into believing that dentists are water fluoridation “experts” when in fact that is clearly not the case. Dentists are so far removed from the accurate water fluoridation science that they are not even in the ballpark of scientifically accurate water fluoridation science.

‘Peer review’ tactic

One very popular tactic that the ADA indoctrinated dentists attempt to use to make them appear as fluoride “experts” is to question if the fluoride opponents are using “peer reviewed” studies in their opposition. Here is my reply to this “peer review” questioning.

I know the promoters of fluoridation often blather that the studies they use to promote the addition of hydrofluorosilicic acid to the public drinking water are peer reviewed. Subsequently, they ask the fluoridation opponents if the studies they present to document the known adverse health effects from fluoridation are peer reviewed.

In my experience with peer review it can be slanted depending on who the “peer reviewers” are beholden to. For example, there is this study done by a hungry fox. This foxes study concluded that is safe for a fox to guard the chickens.

The chickens questioned the accuracy of this study and ask the fox if the study had been peer reviewed. The fox said no it had not been peer reviewed so the fox organized its peers and they did a peer review study and all the foxes concluded that the “peer reviewed” study was accurate and that it was OK for hungry foxes to guard the chickens. So the chickens now do not have a choice, they are now guarded by the hungry foxes…think those chickens feel safe?

For all of your dentists who may be reading this and now have your feathers ruffled, I will give you an opportunity to attack and silence me.

My challenge

I will forfeit my dental license (Oklahoma No. 3569) to the first dentist who can provide to me one copy of any controlled experiment with the U.S. Public Health Service recommending fluorides in water at the USPHS recommended parts per million, showing poisonous fluorides are (as published as fact by promoters of fluoridation) safe, beneficial and will cause no future body harm. Or, provide to me one copy of any controlled experiment without those numerous variables that are mentioned above that scientifically documents water fluoridation reduces or prevents tooth decay.

Dentists need to visit www.DentalConfessions.com and study the Fluoride Fraud section for details. What is found there is virtually all the documentation I use to support my conclusions, sourced from the Journal of the American Dental Association, and/or from public health Journals from the time back when they were truthful.

About The Author

David Tulis hosts a talk show weekdays 1 to 3 p.m. on NoogaRadio 92.7 FM 95.3 FM HD4 (digital), covering local economy and free markets in Chattanooga and beyond. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice; all discussions about law and practices favoring a free people are opinion and educational; if you want legal advice consult a licensed attorney.